Skip to main content Skip to office menu Skip to footer
Capital IconMinnesota Legislature

Protecting perpetrators from victims

Published (2/3/2012)
By Mike Cook
Share on: 



A person protected by an order for protection or non-contact order could be charged with a misdemeanor if they invite the abuser over with the intent to retaliate or harass knowing the admittance would violate the protective order.

That is the premise of HF1844. Sponsored by Rep. Sondra Erickson (R-Princeton), the bill was held over for future consideration by the House Public Safety and Crime Prevention Policy and Finance Committee Feb. 1. A companion, SF1490, sponsored by Sen. David Brown (R-Becker), awaits action by the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee.

“This is a dramatic change because I don’t think it occurs in any other state,” Erickson said.

Irene Wade Benjamin, a mother of five and a one-time victim of domestic abuse, is concerned the victim is not held to the same standard of staying away from the perpetrator. “This in itself can cause many more problems for the perpetrator, sending him back to jail and being further charged.”

An example shared by Benjamin involves one of her sons. A no-contact order is in effect, yet a woman contacts her son asking him to come over and babysit their child while she goes to work. Benjamin said the woman insists there won’t be any problems. “My son is caught between a hard place and a rock. He’s got an OFP against him, but yet he has a child there who needs a babysitter and a mom who needs to go to work.”

Liz Richards, director of programming at the Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women, said remedies now exist within protective orders for parenting time arrangements and how those exchanges happen. “It seems a fairly extreme step to create a criminal penalty when there may be a better way to use what we have on the books.” Richards expressed a willingness to work with Erickson to see “if there is a solution to the legitimate issues that are out there.”

“The way this is crafted is really the beginning of a conversation,” Erickson said. “We have to start someplace. If this was not brought forward how can we ever reach a common-sense solution.”

Session Weekly More...


Session Weekly Home



Related Stories


Keeping the courts adequately funded
Public safety finance law doesn’t gut Human Rights Department
(view full story) Published 8/11/2011

Governor vetoes public safety bill
At about $1.8 billion in spending, no cuts to courts were proposed
(view full story) Published 7/15/2011

DNA - It’s all in the family
Familial DNA could help solve criminal cases, but at what cost?
(view full story) Published 4/8/2011

Creating a ‘Safe Harbor’
Wide-ranging support for bill to decriminalize juveniles exploited by prostitution
(view full story) Published 4/1/2011

Two omnibus bills merged into one
DFL legislators oppose cuts to Department of Human Rights, Civil Legal Services
(view full story) Published 4/1/2011

Safety versus savings
Home fire sprinklers would be costly, but can save lives
(view full story) Published 3/4/2011

Minnesota Index: State corrections
Figures and statistics on Minnesota's correctional system
(view full story) Published 2/25/2011

How young is too young?
Committee debates age for youth being charged as an adult in certain cases
(view full story) Published 2/18/2011